3 ms·

Not particularly convinced by this. All the article is saying is "no studies have confirmed that standing desks are correlated with positive health effects."

Not particularly convinced by this. All the article is saying is "no studies have confirmed that standing desks are correlated with positive health effects." Given that standing desks are a relatively new thing, and as they mention there are no good studies either way, that's not very surprising. And the evidence that sitting a lot is bad for you is still there. So the hypothesis that not sitting all day is a good idea still looks pretty valid, and sit-stand desks seem like a decent way to achieve that.

azinman2 11y ago
There are many, many jobs where people stand all day long. Shouldn't be hard to find anyone working at cafes, hospitals, etc.
- mmanfrin 11y ago
  Except you can't compare the health benefits of standing vs sitting by comparing different jobs: those jobs have different salaries, populations, risks, and benefits which all have a say in health. Good luck trying to account for all of that to find causal evidence of sitting/standing's relation to health.
  - azinman2 11y ago
    You won't be able to get ideal statistics this way (any large health study is hard) but you can still do lots to control for these sorts of things. It's not a new need.
  - reasonattlm 11y ago
    http://www.epi.umn.edu/cvdepi/study-synopsis/london-transport-workers-study/ http://www.epi.umn.edu/cvdepi/study-synopsis/london-transpor...
- thenomad 11y ago
  Is anyone recommending standing all day long as an alternative, though? There are a number of middle-ground options, and studying people who stand all day long doesn't really help with evaluating those. It makes intuitive sense that mixing postures and moving is the optimal approach.
trhway 11y ago
>"no studies have confirmed that standing desks are correlated with positive health effects." that depends on the definition of "positive health effects". Does reversing of problems created by 35+ years of sitting (since the first grade of elementary school in my case) counts? To me it does count. Has been standing for 10 months and some issues have either gone or noticeably improved. This is where most people have misunderstanding here - when you're 20-somethig healthy guy, it doesn't matter whether you're sitting or standing (and thus no "positive health effects"). 20 years later - it does (and for some it means sitting is better, for some - standing).
- thenomad 11y ago
  Oh, don't get me wrong. I think sit-standing desks are a good thing - as I say, the scientific evidence strongly suggests they are, and my personal experience with them correlates with yours. But if you're looking for peer-reviewed studies done by Proper Scientists with controls, p-values and so on, there aren't any good, conclusive ones yet. Which doesn't mean that you and I are talking rubbish - it just means there hasn't been enough time to formally evaluate the sit-stand desk yet.
cholantesh 11y ago
>as they mention there are no good studies either way Well, specifically, a scientist who wasn't involved in the meta-analysis opined this. My takeaway is that the emphatic and zealous testimonials that some users of standing/treadmill/pedalling/Dance-Dance-Revolution-pad desks offer are premature from a scientific standpoint.

azinman2 11y ago

There are many, many jobs where people stand all day long. Shouldn't be hard to find anyone working at cafes, hospitals, etc.

mmanfrin 11y ago
Except you can't compare the health benefits of standing vs sitting by comparing different jobs: those jobs have different salaries, populations, risks, and benefits which all have a say in health. Good luck trying to account for all of that to find causal evidence of sitting/standing's relation to health.
- azinman2 11y ago
  You won't be able to get ideal statistics this way (any large health study is hard) but you can still do lots to control for these sorts of things. It's not a new need.
- reasonattlm 11y ago
  http://www.epi.umn.edu/cvdepi/study-synopsis/london-transport-workers-study/ http://www.epi.umn.edu/cvdepi/study-synopsis/london-transpor...
thenomad 11y ago
Is anyone recommending standing all day long as an alternative, though? There are a number of middle-ground options, and studying people who stand all day long doesn't really help with evaluating those. It makes intuitive sense that mixing postures and moving is the optimal approach.

trhway 11y ago

>"no studies have confirmed that standing desks are correlated with positive health effects." that depends on the definition of "positive health effects". Does reversing of problems created by 35+ years of sitting (since the first grade of elementary school in my case) counts? To me it does count. Has been standing for 10 months and some issues have either gone or noticeably improved. This is where most people have misunderstanding here - when you're 20-somethig healthy guy, it doesn't matter whether you're sitting or standing (and thus no "positive health effects"). 20 years later - it does (and for some it means sitting is better, for some - standing).

thenomad 11y ago
Oh, don't get me wrong. I think sit-standing desks are a good thing - as I say, the scientific evidence strongly suggests they are, and my personal experience with them correlates with yours. But if you're looking for peer-reviewed studies done by Proper Scientists with controls, p-values and so on, there aren't any good, conclusive ones yet. Which doesn't mean that you and I are talking rubbish - it just means there hasn't been enough time to formally evaluate the sit-stand desk yet.

cholantesh 11y ago

>as they mention there are no good studies either way Well, specifically, a scientist who wasn't involved in the meta-analysis opined this. My takeaway is that the emphatic and zealous testimonials that some users of standing/treadmill/pedalling/Dance-Dance-Revolution-pad desks offer are premature from a scientific standpoint.